Prisoner No. 46664 & The Power Of Forgiveness

Freedom on the African continent was a reality for which we were willing to fight. Nevertheless, I think we’d resigned ourselves to the likelihood that Mandela would remain a prisoner until his death, and South Africans would not experience equality until well after our lifetimes. Then on Feb. 11, 1990, the miraculous happened; Mandela was released.

The world was spellbound. We wondered what we would do if we were in his shoes. We all waited for an indescribable rage, a call for retribution that any reasonable mind would have understood. Twenty-seven years of his life, gone. Day after day of hard labor in a limestone quarry, chipping away at white rock under a bright and merciless sun — without benefit of protective eyewear — had virtually destroyed his tear ducts and, for years, robbed Mandela even of his ability to cry.

Yet, the man insisted on forgiveness. “To go to prison because of your convictions,” he said, “and be prepared to suffer for what you believe in, is something worthwhile. It is an achievement for a man to do his duty on earth irrespective of the consequences.”

By the time I finally came face to face with Nelson Mandela, he had already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and elected president of a land in which he and all other black people had previously been refused suffrage. He had become an icon, not only of hope, but also of the possibility for healing.

How Mandela forgave, I can barely fathom. That was a great man. A great man.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 70 comments

70 Responses to Prisoner No. 46664 & The Power Of Forgiveness

Re: I would hope that I would have remained committed to nonviolence, but I know my own heart

Really?

It seems to me that apartheid South Africa certainly qualified as a regime that deserved by overthrown, by violent revolution if necessary. In the event, violence turned out *not* to be necessary, but if you believe in just war theory at all, South Africa seems like a clear case of where it would be legitimate to take up arms.

If that’s the lesson you take from the passage, you’ve wildly misinterpreted it. Orwell was something of a Trotskyist himself, the passage was put into the mouth of a character fairly clearly based on Trotsky, and the meaning of the passage wasn’t to criticize revolutions for going too far, it was to criticize them for not going far enough.

Soviet Communism was not the corruption of something that had a lot of good in it. In its very concept, that the state could take the property of those who earned and owned it and use it for its own purposes, it defied the law of God. One interesting contrast between life in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany I learned once in a college course is that while the Nazis abused and denied justice to their political enemies, Stalin practiced terrorism on principle – anyone could at any time and on any pretext be hauled away – with the object of keeping the population so cowed, like a beaten dog, that they could always be easily bent to their master’s will.

Neither was apartheid intrinsically evil, any more than racial segregation in the United States. Those who instituted both envisioned them as the only reasonable path of allowing both the white and black races to achieve their full potential, freed from the conflicts and resentments they felt certain would result if the races were not kept separate. What can be said about apartheid and segregation is that they were unrealistically utopian. It was a pipedream to believe that those walls of separation could ever be maintained. But remember, when each was instituted the alternative was blacks and whites living together in peace and unity – the alternative was mass deportations of the subjected population.

Recognize that the same dynamic is at work in Israel – Palestine today. Only a few idyllic voices, and none among office holding politicians calls for Arabs and Jews to live together in that land without religious or ethnic distinction. The options publicly debated are established borders with a wall of separation or continued expulsions of Palestinians from their homes on the lands of their ancestors.

Soviet Communism was not the corruption of something that had a lot of good in it. In its very concept, that the state could take the property of those who earned and owned it and use it for its own purposes, it defied the law of God. One interesting contrast between life in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany I learned once in a college course is that while the Nazis abused and denied justice to their political enemies, Stalin practiced terrorism on principle – anyone could at any time and on any pretext be hauled away – with the object of keeping the population so cowed, like a beaten dog, that they could always be easily bent to their master’s will.

Neither was apartheid intrinsically evil, any more than racial segregation in the United States. Those who instituted both envisioned them as the only reasonable path of allowing both the white and black races to achieve their full potential, freed from the conflicts and resentments they felt certain would result if the races were not kept separate. What can be said about apartheid and segregation is that they were unrealistically utopian. It was a pipedream to believe that those walls of separation could ever be maintained. But remember, when each was instituted the alternative was not blacks and whites living together in peace and unity – the alternative was mass deportations of the subjected population.

Recognize that the same dynamic is at work in Israel – Palestine today. Only a few idyllic voices, and none among office holding politicians calls for Arabs and Jews to live together in that land without religious or ethnic distinction. The options publicly debated are established borders with a wall of separation or continued expulsions of Palestinians from their homes on the lands of their ancestors.

And so a purported Christian expresses the least Christian sentiment imaginable. Even if one believes a person deserving thereof, one should never hope for that, but for final (if unknowable to us) repentance. That well-known radical Fr. Richard John Neuhaus would agree with my sentiments here.

As to eeevul equality, let’s wait until your so-called “Meltdown” occurs, and see if you perhaps end up in a lower category (social upheaval has a way of doing that); and see what you think about eeeevul equality then. It’s very easy to criticize equality when one oneself is in the favored category.

My bets are that when the Meltdown happens, people are going to be a lot *more* interested in state-enforced equality, not less. People don’t turn to communism and socialism in times of comfort, but rather in times of crisis.

Turmarion writes: “As to eeevul equality, let’s wait until your so-called “Meltdown” occurs, and see if you perhaps end up in a lower category (social upheaval has a way of doing that); and see what you think about eeeevul equality then. It’s very easy to criticize equality when one oneself is in the favored category.”

I’m not in any “favored category”. I’m white, male, normal and a taxpayer.

Perhaps God sees and hears more than you Karth? Maybe He knows for sure, one way or the other? Perhaps we should pray for all in the hope of a repentance that us unknown to us, but known to God? Perhaps we should take to heart the Catholic prayer, “O my Jesus, forgive us our sin, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy“? Perhaps if true justice were done, we couldn’t be so sure of ourselves (and I include myself, the chief of sinners)?

And any “white, normal, tax-paying male” who thinks he’s oppressed or not favored ought to perform the famous Black Like Me experiment. Or in the case of a Christian move to a Muslim country and see what it’s really like to be a second-class citizen.

William Dalton writes: “Recognize that the same dynamic is at work in Israel – Palestine today. Only a few idyllic voices, and none among office holding politicians calls for Arabs and Jews to live together in that land without religious or ethnic distinction. The options publicly debated are established borders with a wall of separation or continued expulsions of Palestinians from their homes on the lands of their ancestors.”

There’s a third, and far more likely option: “the separation of walls and wire, followed by the mass grave”.

He certainly does. Which is not my problem. I can only operate with the faculties I have, and with the knowledge I have available to me. No doubt He will explain it to me more fully, right before He throws me into Hell.

Maybe He knows for sure, one way or the other? Perhaps we should pray for all in the hope of a repentance that us unknown to us, but known to God? Perhaps we should take to heart the Catholic prayer, “O my Jesus, forgive us our sin, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy“? Perhaps if true justice were done, we couldn’t be so sure of ourselves (and I include myself, the chief of sinners)?

As someone who, as I said, fully expects to either be thrown into Hell or be destroyed when I die, all I can ask for is Justice.

For everyone. Including those who lead terrorist organizations and approve political murders. Mercy is not mine to ask for, just His to give.

Karth: As someone who, as I said, fully expects to either be thrown into Hell or be destroyed when I die, all I can ask for is Justice.

For everyone. Including those who lead terrorist organizations and approve political murders. Mercy is not mine to ask for, just His to give.

You remind me of a guy I used to argue with on a traddie Catholic blog who said it’d be better if there was no heaven, but at least a Hell, so that at least the reprobate would get what’s coming to them, than for there to be no afterlife at all. Whatever floats your boat, but, boy, what a sick spirituality.

Re: You remind me of a guy I used to argue with on a traddie Catholic blog who said it’d be better if there was no heaven, but at least a Hell, so that at least the reprobate would get what’s coming to them, than for there to be no afterlife at all

If you’re talking about the ‘A Sinner’ dude, from the occasional times I’ve glanced at his blog, he’s….changed since you stopped commenting there. He rather abruptly started talking about how “he’s decided that God isn’t angry anymore”, quoting Julian of Norwich, and he officially came out as gay.

Re: Soviet Communism was not the corruption of something that had a lot of good in it. In its very concept, that the state could take the property of those who earned and owned it and use it for its own purposes, it defied the law of God.

You’re starting from a conception of what it means to earn, and to own, things, which owes more to the Enlightenment theorists of capitalism than it does to any religious sources. There was certainly much that was evil about Soviet Communism, but the idea of communism wasn’t, and isn’t, evil in its essence. There’s nothing un-Christian, or against the natural law, in the idea of the state owning the means of production. Christianity coexisted fine with pre-capitalist, feudal modes of production; it coexists with capitalism in America today; and it can coexist fine with a system in which the feudal lord and the capitalist are supplanted by the state. (And, of course, it can coexist perhaps best, in a world in which workers own their own productive resources, and control their own affairs).

Re: Stalin practiced terrorism on principle – anyone could at any time and on any pretext be hauled away – with the object of keeping the population so cowed, like a beaten dog, that they could always be easily bent to their master’s will.

Yes, which is why I was clear to say that Soviet communism was the *corruption* of something that had been largely good in its origins. The corruption of the best things gives us the worst, as the proverb tells us, and the very reason Stalin was more successful at accomplishing evil than Hitler, is because his lies incorporated a good deal of truth. Though as I’m sure you know, the Stalinist terror wasn’t typical of the Soviet union by the 1970s and 1980s, nor was it typical of every communist state.

As for segregation and apartheid, yes, unlike communism they *were* intrinsically evil, and I’m baffled that you call them ‘utopian’. The objective of segregation- in the United States and South Africa both- was to keep the subject race in a state of subjection, and they did so at massive cost not only to equality, but to liberty and fraternity as well. Remember that you’re excusing a system which banned a black person and a white person from *falling and love and marrying*.

Yes, Hector, that’s who I had in mind, and I’m aware that he’s changed his tune. I didn’t mention that because it wasn’t relevant to what I was saying to Karth. I don’t want to play armchair analyst for people I don’t know personally, but I think in general that too much fixation on justice is problematic.

Of course, one could go to the other extreme–even though I’m a universalist, I do think that every wrong is eventually requited, one way or another. I just don’t think an eternal hell is necessary for even the most heinous earthly crimes, which however bad are nevertheless finite.

‘ Remember that you’re excusing a system which banned a black person and a white person from *falling and love and marrying*.

Being the outcome [happy in my view] of a union remarkably like that, I do not get emotive-angry at Segregation but merely comment
‘We will bury you’.
And I might have been much more vindictive than Prisoner 46664.

I have no delusion that he was a saint, but odds are he was a much better man than myself.

“Ever heard of “necklacing” ? It’s a rather nasty form of public torture whereby a gasoline-filled tire is placed around the target’s neck, and then set afire.”

Ever heard of “tarring and feathering” ? It’s a rather nasty form of public torture whereby a person is stripped naked, covered with hot tar, and feathers are then dumped over the person, causing the skin to peel off when the feathers are tugged. It was a rather common form of attack that was one of the “specialties” of the patriot mobs and militias of 18th century American colonists. They also had a penchant for attacks on soft (non-military) targets, especially those who were regarded as Beitish collaborators (“Tories”).

“Incidentally, necklacing continued even after Mr. Mandela’s release. The main group that perpetrated these necklacings was run by none other than Winnie Mandela. The so-called “great man’s” wife. As far as I know, he did not one damn thing to stop it.”

He divorced her, fired her from any official posts, and made it clear that her continued thuggish behavior was the reason. you know nothing but what you wish to know.

A.G. Phillbin writes: ““Incidentally, necklacing continued even after Mr. Mandela’s release. The main group that perpetrated these necklacings was run by none other than Winnie Mandela. The so-called “great man’s” wife. As far as I know, he did not one damn thing to stop it.”

He divorced her, fired her from any official posts, and made it clear that her continued thuggish behavior was the reason. you know nothing but what you wish to know.”

If he was truly the “great man” everyone seems to wish to believe he was, if he was truly the man his hagiographers say he was, he’d have had this vicious harridan prosecuted, tried and executed.

I can believe that Lord Karth would prosecute, try, and execute his own wife, before or after divorce, but most of us would find that difficult, no matter what crimes she had committed.

Incidentally, before broadside criticism of Winnie Mandela — must as her later actions deserve caustic criticism — try reading her book Part of my soul went with him. One could easily characterize her defects as a kind of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which sometimes requires that the person be taken out of circulation for the good of the community, but does mitigate some judgment one might otherwise make.